Psychological contract breaches, plans to quit, and destructive voice behavior: Catalytic effects of proactive personality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How and when might employees’ perceptions of psychological contract breaches escalate into destructive voice behavior? This study predicts a mediating role of plans to quit and a moderating role of a proactive personality in this connection. Cross-sectional survey data, collected among 227 employees who work in the Canadian retail sector, inform the tests of these predictions; the statistical analyses rely on the Process macro, which supports comprehensive assessments of the proposed moderated mediation framework. The results show that a critical reason that beliefs about broken organizational promises stimulate employees to criticize their organization is that they search for alternative employment. This mediating influence of quitting is particularly salient among employees who have a disposition toward action. The study accordingly points to a notable risk for employees who are upset with an organization that does not keep its side of the bargain: They consider quitting their jobs, which spurs them to undertake destructive activities that likely render it more challenging to convince their employer to fix the problem. This harmful dynamic is especially potent among proactive employees who like to take initiative.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".